Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 7, 2014 6:00pm-6:31pm PST

6:00 pm
replacement permit. >> we can't see what you are reading from. >> it's a different page. it's all in the exhibits. >> what exhibit? >> exhibit 3, page 9. to this the respondent claims that ms. myers is not a building or planning professional but rather a mother whose windows needed to be replaced an she did not know she needed a permit for windows to be replaced. unfortunately i agree with respondent ms. myers feels that many home improvements do not require a permit. further the reality
6:01 pm
that ms. myers is a homeowner in several homes in the area and building as several experts wrote this brief at her finger tips. finally according to ceqa categorical exemption form. this is page 3. the project planner checked the box for window replacement meets the department for window replacement standards. if it is determined the replacement window do not meet such standards then the project does not meet categorical exemption. with all of this in mind, it
6:02 pm
requests mr. speaker mierz to replace the windows without permit with wood framed windows required by the planning in order to maintain the integrity and beauty of our city. thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> commissioners mary gallagher. michelle myers put these windows 4 years ago. -- 14 years ago. there is many issues in regard to this appeal 679 one the issue of
6:03 pm
the permit was not in error. it was received by senior planner at the information counter. they knew it was illegalization of the windows installed and they reviewed the windows in the neighborhood. after i contacted mr. bodien to rea firm and the issue was final and abated. two, ceqa applies to the future, not to effects that happened 14 years ago. the department continues to inconsistently implement ceqa in this manner. 3, the zoning administrator is not in doubt with ceqa. the zoning administrators powers are many but the charter nor the planning coda allow to take any action on the ceqa document. planning staff issuing a categorical xemg on
6:04 pm
december 31st. four, the building is not originally historic. national register of historic places of eligibility criteria are used by the department in evaluating historic significance. there are two components of national registered standards, one has to do with architecture and one with history. in terms of architecture this is a common unan adorned and missionary revival. it has not distinctive fix us -- if fixtures. it was written by the historian. he included properties as quote uniformly bland and lacking distinct. the entire neighborhood was
6:05 pm
studied and determine no aspect to historic district. this issue was also put in historic evaluation. this historic district does not exist anywhere in this building. six, even if this building were historic there is nothing about the windows that define the characteristics of this home even on the basis of some historic events that is not some specific unrelated architectural aspects of the building. if the building is not significant for it's architecture which it clearly is not then the windows are not findings as significant. many of the homes in the neighborhood do have vinyl windows. 1096 ash bury, 1082, 1086 ash bury. i have a stack
6:06 pm
that could keep us here all night. in your review of a window permit that an appealed for stockton street that other vinyl windows in that neighborhood didn't count for neighborhood. no where in any definition in any document of this city does neighborhood character define the legality. neighborhood character is neighborhood character. this issen titled to buildings. this is comparing favorably. they were ordered to fit the openings including the semicircular openings over the garage bay. there is a preference but not a black and white requirement for windows by the planning department. it is a discretionary standard,
6:07 pm
a guideline. one of the underlying principles is ironically i'm quoting the same section. if a window is proposed for any type of structure, the new windows from any public right-of-way should be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and the subject building in terms of size, glazing, operation, finish and exterior profiles and arrangement. the neighborhoods character is in anyway vinyl or wood. this as long as it contribute to the architectural character. the windows are compatible. 10, over turning the issuance of this permit will have a chilling effect of every citizens effect to exercise dr. over sized permit which have do have a regular basis for issuance such as this one merely because a developer
6:08 pm
wants to intimidate a dr applicant, promotes bullying and institutionalizes. the windows were in uniform in effect at the time. the windows guidelines from 2003-2005. the windows were installed in 2000. that had permit holder taken out a permit it would have complied at the time. showing all of the points i would hope you agree. i would like to introduce michelle >> hello commissioners. my name is michelle myers. i live on ash bury street. i'm trul sorry that i didn't have a permit at the time. i truly am
6:09 pm
sorry. when i came home and my daughter saw that note on the door i immediately went to the planning department the next day and i thought i rectified situation. i'm sorry i can't change time. if you have any questions for me, please ask. >> the thickness of the window frame that you purchased, how thick is it? >> i don't understand the question because i'm not a contract or. but it fits in the same window seal, nothing was changed. >> perhaps your consultant understands. what is the width of the frame? >> i have no idea. i don't know. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. i will be brief and on this matter i
6:10 pm
think as we had on the stockton street case we do have windows that we do not believe complied with our guidelines and we believe the permit was issued in error and respectfully request that the board deny the permit and require that windows that comply with our design guidelines be proposed for this property. i think what happened here the staff planner was very experienced was supervising a new staff planner and i think they exercised discretion and reviewed this. saw that the windows were installed some 14 years ago. at that time our design guidelines were not in fekteffect. also maybe perhaps even recognizing that with these types of windows, vinyl windows don't have the same performance or longevity that
6:11 pm
quality windows were and would need replacement in the future and would satisfy our guidelines. these maybe even also the issue that was raised about the in the case the appellant having filed a complaint on the property it was believed to be as a result of the dr being filed on his project that the planner may have considered in exercising their discretion. i think in this case, we need to apply the guidelines that we have uniformly. it's the only way to fairly do so and that's why we are requesting that you deny the permit. while we don't have historical photos of this building, i think it's a fair argument to say that the windows that were there before original to the building were probably in a
6:12 pm
relatively plain building probably some of the more character elements findings of it. i viewed these with the preservation staff and they believe they have been treated with casement windows and not double hung on the windows that would have been installed with the permit. we would have been looking at different types, different window material. it doesn't need to be 100 percent wood. we see that they can be suitable based on a case basis and that could be a suitable alternative which can be a little bit more clad windows which are more cost-effective. these would be custom windows given the size of them and the configurations. with that, i am available for any questions. >> i have a question. so are you asking us to apply retro
6:13 pm
actively our guidelines to 2,000 when they weren't in effect? >> no. they saw the no permit in 2,000. they saw the the permit now and our guidelines are in effect now. so we have to apply them to the permit to legalize the windows that were done without permit. >> apart from -- okay. but apart from aesthetics what's the practical significance of vinyl versus wood. is there a viable difference in terms of noise or anything like that? >> primarily it's aesthetics. secondly but also important is generally they are windows that perform better, last longer. not that you can't have vinyl windows that meet the energy efficiency standards and typically in new vinyl windows are better than
6:14 pm
that 10-20 years ago but you would have vinyl windows that last a couple years whereas wood bind -- windows and longevity are better. >> my last question is you are asking us to reverse your own staff's decision here and i am troubled by the implication that this is this complaint is in retaliation for dr. your staff took that into consideration when not imposing a penalty. so what's your view on that? are we encouraging these types of complaints in retaliation? >> i think that's a consideration for the board to make in the decision tonight. i certainly would understand that. we have to look objectively at whether or not
6:15 pm
something was in compliance or not. we received complaints that are anonymous of those which we know who the complainant was as to try to sift through what the modifications may have been are problematic and we have to follow our code requirements and exercising discretion along those lines at our level is problematic. >> but your staff person exercised discretion in terms of probably viewing the other types of windows surrounding this particular property. would you say your staff person properly exercised discretion under that regard under that st. -- standard because i saw a lot of other windows similar. >> there were other vinyl windows and without permit. i apologize, i did not look at
6:16 pm
the other properties. i did not have addresses. i did not do that research here to see if there were others but on the stockton case as part of this are brief had 20 or 30 photos with the address. i passed those onto the department of building inspection for enforcement. those were all windows with proper permit. so the appellant here is going to be very unpopular once the neighbors get a notice of violation for enforcement. >> well, their property there is is a discretionary hearing in the upcoming weeks that is a major alteration to the building. >> and regarding the stockton we enforced but we gave them a long period of time for correction. >> yes.
6:17 pm
>> per commissioner fung's strungs instructions. >> i don't recall the length of time? >> i think it was 5-10 years. >> and we only applied it to public facing windows. >> mr. sanchez, one of the primary reasons why the planning department changed their criteria and allowed vinyl is because vinyl wound up being able to extrude shapes that were wider which then looked more in conformity with the depth of woodwind owes. i think that was one of the reasons. you are right. in terms of the longevity of the previous generations of vinyl windows was not very good. that's why i asked your
6:18 pm
predecessor what they looked like because they were wider than the thin ones that used to be ones that the planning department may not prove. >> i think the thickness is they might be thicker where they double hung and i think that was more of the bigger concerns. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. duffy? oor >> good evening commissioners. congratulations on your positions. the first complaint on the department we got on december 13th. we opened the case in december 2013. we
6:19 pm
issued a notice of violation and a complete investigation has revealed the installation of vinyl windows without the permit all work is visible from the street. obtain a building permit but the department of city planning and approval required out of required inspections. that was december 30, 2013. on december 31st the next day the building permit was applied to work on building in 2000. the permit not issued in response to violation. we issued the building permit on december 31, 2013, with city planning approval. the final inspection was called for on january 7, 2014. we then signed off on the permit as it appeared it had been properly issues. we
6:20 pm
closed the case on the 8th of january 2014 and obviously we had the appeal. >> do you have any information on the dr timeline? >> no i don't. i'm sorry i don't have that. that would be mr. scott sanchez. >> mr. sanchez maybe i can ask you the same question. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> seeing none, we'll have rebuttal. mr. bash, 3 minutes. >> not that i have anything against developers but i actual happen to be an operations manager for a preschool. i don't know where ms. gallagher is getting her information. in preparation for this meeting i watched quite a few of your televised
6:21 pm
meetings and i'm aware of her distaste towards developers. there is i don't know how much money spent for a document for a window replacement. i would like to reiterate my support for the city's management of the city for managing it's historical beauty. we have seen that a lot tonight and in previous meetings. still i find this situation as setting an example where the city awards without permits by allowing permit holders to lower standards than those
6:22 pm
who apply for a permit within a timely fashion . obviously mr. sanchez took a different position if it is upheld. any action to hold windows would encourage other property owners to take similar actions. i would like to finish by reminding the board that ms. gallagher herself appearing said if it's okay to give a wink and a nod to property owners then every property owner will ignore these requirements. i thank you for your time. >> ms. gallagher? >> how much time do i have. 3 minutes isn't enough time to show you all the other vinyl
6:23 pm
windows all over the neighborhood. it's about 50 or 60 of them. so we'll just bypass that. i just want to draw a distinction between the stockton case and this case and in that case the department disapproved the permit. that is a very unique situation where the glass itself was rounding. these are really standard windows, the architectural historian described this building as lacking in distinction. the windows are higher quality to other vinyl windows in the neighborhood. the guidelines are that guidelines. i stand corrected. they are guidelines. it's not a quantitative mandatory standard. again, this was done 14 years ago. michelle is
6:24 pm
very sorry and i would think that when these windows are ready to be replaced that next time she will go for aluminum clad woodwind oh. i hope you give her the opportunity to do that. the rounded windows would have been very expensive to have made to fit. having done this with developers many times, i'm guessing it is a $25,000 job for the entire facade. let her have ten 10 years for the useful life of this window to run out another decade or so and she'll get a new permit for a new window. i think there is plenty for you to grab onto to allow the prments to be issued tonight. thank you.
6:25 pm
>> mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez. i don't have anything further to add but in response to vice-president hurtado, the discretionary review was filed in november of last year about a month before the complaint was filed. >> who filed the complaint on the nov, do we know? was it the appellant? >> i believe it was anonymous in the system. >> the document i have said it was anonymous. >> okay. commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i guess i will start. although i'm not promoting
6:26 pm
retaliation for a dr, i do believe that the za has made a case that no matter when you did the windows, if they were done without a permit and you now get in expected they need to come to today's standards. understanding also that it could be hardship to go to a clad wood clad or clad window, i would be willing to extend something similar that was offered to the stockton street property. >> i'm not sure. can you elaborate? >> what my feeling is that the the permit was issued in error but i would give time extension on the correction that needs to be done. that's just my opinion.
6:27 pm
>> okay. i would like to bring something up. it's a little bit of history and as my commissioners know i'm always bringing up a little bit of history. but the planning department at one time would not have allowed vinyl in any form or manner. they would have in this particular home required it to be wood matching the original. that was especially true when i was at planning. but they changed their mind and a lot of the reasons we talked about earlier is that vinyl windows were now created and manufactured and depth that approximated them to be more traditional windows and the longevity was increased and their performance in terms of energy protection double glazing or and sound
6:28 pm
protection is probably as good as any of the others. will they last as long as a cladded wood frame window? hard to say. i don't think we'll be around when they disappear. but i'm not sure i would have said the department wouldn't have changed 14 years ago already. all right. it's been longer than that since i was at planning. >> i'm not sure where? >> where i was going? i would support the permit and allow her to keep her windows. >> i would as well. you can tell from the comments. it's actually that just confirm my
6:29 pm
initial feeling about this case. i mean, i think, well, i will leave it at that. >> i will make a motion that we uphold the permit on the basis that planning staff exercises discretion appropriately and it was properly issued pursuant to the guidelines that are not mandatory. city clerk: so the motion is from the vice-president to uphold the permit on the batsz basis it was properly
6:30 pm
issued. >> properly exercised it's discretion according to the guidelines. >> on that motion to uphold with that basis commissioner fung? aye. commissioner hwang is absent. president lapis lazuli ruz? no. no. commissioner honored honda. aye the vote is 2-1. we have no further business. we are adjourned. so says madam president. [ meeting is adjourned adjourn >>